Re: [boost] Re: resource manager naming

From: Greg Colvin (Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-01 12:50:34

At 10:16 AM 3/1/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
>Greg Colvin wrote:
>
>> Which is why the original releaser<> proposal is not in the standard.
>> There are just too many different kinds of resource, with too many
>> different ways of acquiring and releasing them.  So it wasn't clear
>> that any general facility could improve on just wrapping each resource
>> in a class with constructors that acquire the resource and a destructor
>> that releases it.
>
>The principle advantage the releaser<>-type class is that it gives us
>something to attach policies to.  It is difficult to apply policies in a
>vacuum.  In fact AFAICT the only purpose of this hypothetical class is
>purely as a policy-holder!

Yes, and policies are one area where C++ design has made
big advances since the standard library was designed.